0:00The primary focus of the meeting was a public hearing on an application submitted by Jacob Targ to install solar panels on his property, located within the Townsend historic district. The proposed installation comprised 23 photovoltaic panels with a capacity of 9.43 kilowatts DC. Despite receiving waiver responses from two abutters, the absence of input from J. Thiel, an abutter residing directly across the street, prompted the commission to consider delaying their decision on the application.

The debate centered around the visibility of the solar panels from Main Street, a point of concern for the commissioners. They discussed the optimal positioning of the panels, taking into account the orientation of the house and the necessity for maximum sunlight capture, which necessitated a south-facing installation. One commissioner questioned why the panels were not positioned on less visible areas of the roof, sparking a dialogue about the balance between historic preservation and the adoption of modern energy solutions.

Commission members were mindful of Massachusetts advisories against the prejudicial rejection of solar applications, particularly in light of the current economic climate and the importance of sustainable energy. However, the absence of Targ at the meeting, coupled with the lack of Thiel’s input, led some members to advocate for tabling the decision. They argued that a review was necessary to respect the perspectives of all parties involved, highlighting the procedural timeline, which allowed for a 30-day window to make a decision.

29:42The commission’s deliberation extended beyond the solar panel application to broader issues of enforcement within the historic district, notably concerning signage violations. A letter from Eric Charton to Mr. Patel, a store owner, addressed the non-compliance of multiple signs with the commission’s guidelines. Commissioners praised the detailed nature of the letter, noting its clarity and the lack of ambiguity in its directives.

Enforcement logistics and the imposition of fines for signage violations were a portion of the discussion. There was uncertainty about whether fines should be enforced by the commission or the building inspector, with previous instances cited where fines reached up to $250 per day. The commission’s authority under Massachusetts law to impose fines for ongoing violations was reaffirmed, although the process for ensuring compliance remained a challenge.

The commission expressed a preference for a collaborative approach in addressing violations, as evidenced by a member’s intent to personally discuss the signage issues with Mr. Patel before resorting to fines. They acknowledged the effectiveness of fines in achieving compliance, recalling past experiences where immediate action followed the imposition of fines. Nonetheless, there was an understanding that maintaining long-term compliance required continuous monitoring and communication.

As the meeting drew to a close, the commission emphasized the need for structured and clear communication regarding enforcement actions. They agreed to keep all members updated on developments through email.